The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-10-28
The Rights Of the Anarchists
The Supreme Court Hears the Argu-
ments of the Attorneys.
j. Randolph fuckers Eloquence In
Behalf of the Condemned.
Reply Of the Attorney General of
Buffers Brief.
Close Interrogation by the Justices
Relations Of the Constitution to
the Case-Full Report of
the Proceedings.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 27.-Anticipation of
the argument before the supreme court
today upon the petition of a writ OF error
in the Chicago anarchist case, attracted TO
the capitol crowd Of eager people, who
seemed as anxious TO gain admission to
the courtroom rs il the anarchists them
selves were TO be present in chains and
letters and TO argue their own case in per-
son. More than an hour before the court
assembled, the courtroom was densely
packed with people, who not only occu-
pied all the seats provided for spectators,
but encroached upon the precincts Of the
bar, and stood in closely packed throngs in
the open space on each side Of the door.
Even out in the corridor there was crowd
endeavoring TO at least get glimpse Of the
interior Of the courtroom through the en-
trance. The audience was destined, how
ever, 10 be at least for time disappointed
When the court was called to order at II
o'clock, and the candidates for admission
10 the bar had been sworn, the chief JUS
tice announced that the court would pro-
coed with the unfinished business OF yester-
day. This unfinished business was case
from Louisiana, which, however, important
TO the litigants, dvery littlcpopular inter
est. The argument in this ease was con-
cluded by Mr. Bcckwith at Los o'clock,
and the chief justice said: 1--WE arc ready
now TO hear the motion for writ Of error
in the case Of Spies and others"
Gen. u. i. Butler asked the court how
much time would be allowed forargument.
His associate, Mr.. Tucker, represented, he
said, the majority Of the petitioners; he
himself represented two OF them, whose
cases were in some respects different from
those Of the others. He would not, he said,
speak merely for the sake Of speaking, but
he would not like 20 be hurried. The chief
justice asked how much time he desired.
Gen. Butler said he would like an hour
and n half for himself and an hour and u
half for his associate, Mr.. Tucker. The
chief Justice said: Every well, We will
allowyou three hours on side"
Attorney General Hunt, of Illinois, said
uet as his associates did not yet know
what scope the argument would take, he
could not say how much time they would
IF ftflIfs Ilt NVUlN AAhif iANNNNfif w INV
an opportunity given 10 his associate, Mr.
Gnnnell, 10 speak.
The chief Justice said that each side
would be allowed three h0us, and that
Mr.. Grinncll might speak.
MR. TuCKERs ARGUMENT.
AZ Ia quarter past o'clock Mr.. J Ran
dolph Tucker opened the argument In sup
mort of the petition for a writ Of error
l. 4 sl.N a.. ..tsaaft.f.a this N
plication were, first, have federal question,
been raised in this case, and, second, does
their character justify their review In this
court?
The act Of 1867, which has been deemet
by this court 10 be substitute for the
twenty-sixih section Of the judiciary net
gives Jurisdiction, iirst where a statute o
authority exercised under the Stote IL NJ
punennt 10 the constitution OF the Cnitet
States; and, second, where right, priv
lcge orimmunity claimed under the con
stitution is denied.
Mr.. Tucker argued that this statute
sboull be construed literally 10 the part
making the appcsA, since IL was EVIDENT!
the intention Of It's trainers 10 civ'
free access 20 this court. There
fore, II any litigant present
n case in which the question o
conflict between the rulings Of court u
the enforcement OF any law OF the stat
and the constitution Of the United state
arises, Il IL not necessary that such liu
gants should establish actual repugnanc
10 the constitution, but only to show tina
there IL conflict. II am glad tobelinVe,
said Mr.. Tucker, "that the constitution q
| ,be limited States has made thia court q
Justice n refuge for any man who finds oI
nrcssion under the local decisions OF an
Commonwealth in the Union. IL is cit
of refuge from the avengcr Of blood, and
man who comes here and takes hold OF th
horns OF this altar Of justice cannot be n
fused hearing" Mr.. Mckcrthen said tbs
In the order made by the court In IN
case II was stated that n writ OF error di
moi issue from this court M matter {
course, but only upon proof that the pet
tioner was entitled 20 II. He though
However. that II the court had jurisdi'
lion. then the writ must issue ~ matte
az right. and 20 establish the juTisdictio
Of the court, Il was only necessary 10 sho
n conflict between the constitution and II
rulings Of the court below. 81 woul
make n distinction" said Mr.. Tucke
'bctween conflict and repuwance. Whe
n conflict IL shown, Jurisdiction attach
and entities MS 10 the writ. Rcpugnan'
must be shown ns grounu LOT reNersu
judgment"
Mr.. Tucker said that the policy OF III
court had seemed 10 be 10 look rather !
diligently upon petitions for wriis OF err
In civil cascs-to look rather for rcaso
why they should be granted, than rrcaso
WHY they should be refused. II this We
i,s policy In civil cases, how much mo
should Il be 10 In cases OF a criminal chs
meter where the life Of citizen was
s,ake-whcre life was about TO be TAX
away In violation Of the constitutio
Proceeding then 20 the merits oil the Gu
Mr.. Tucker said that II was not neccssa
that law Of q State should be absolute
and on lis face unconstitutional In order
give this court jurisdiction OF case und
n law, seemingly fair and just
rs face, should have put upon
by the State courts n cons'l ucu
contrary 10 tho constitution that
enough TO give this court jurisdiction.
any department OF State go,,crnn'
violates The terms Of the fourteenth anne,
mont n istae State that violates u. ,
Turler then reviewed the history OF
adoption OF the fourteenth amcndme
and said that although Il was oIi1in'